.357 Sig Performance Controversy

[Al Lipscomb]

Originally Posted by Shawn Dodson

It appears FAM administrators may, in fact, be considering .45 ACP to replace .357 SIG. I was contacted recently by a reporter from a D.C. newspaper who's been investigating the story. Apparently the FAMs don't want to give up .357 SIG and have been griping about it to the press.

I would not want to give up the gun I had invested all of those training hours into either.

[Section1_Operations]

Originally Posted by Speed is Life

There are some worries that could cause problems in a few vulnerable systems, like the pilots for example , but the primary focus is whether or not the ammunition selection would tend towards overpenetration and collateral damage.

Originally Posted by Speed is Life

Speedy

With all due respect to peoples loved ones, who gives a F*&$ about collateral damage due to overpenetration. When a FAM deploys and uses their weapon all I care about is a dead hijacker(s) or threat(s), all other concerns are after thoughts in my opinion. I'd rather have a wounded passenger and a dead hijacker(s) than another guided missile or cargo to ransom in a foreign airport.

Airliners have triple redundant systems and two people who can monitor the automatic landing of the plane. I have to say again, to me, there's little to worry about concerning a FAM and their possible deployment of a firearm inside of a planes cabin.


I think the caliber debate is a moot one at best, that is given the best testing rounds in each caliber.


The greatest disservice they could do is select some underpenetrating, fragmenting, or disintegrating round for PC reasons.

Credit to DocGKR's picture page: Link

[Mark Swain]

For all of the hoopla over caliber selection I find it interesting that the side by side comparison of different rounds show similar tissue disruption and penetration.

[Section1_Operations]

Originally Posted by Mark Swain

For all of the hoopla over caliber selection I find it interesting that the side by side comparison of different rounds show similar tissue disruption and penetration.

Yeah, it's amazing someone didn't mention that 0.10" in diameter doesn't really make that big of a difference when shooting at a non-stationary target for you life and not points.

Of course LaManns ammunition might dispute that argument with their super duper one stop zombie killers

[michael]

Originally Posted by Mark Swain

For all of the hoopla over caliber selection I find it interesting that the side by side comparison of different rounds show similar tissue disruption and penetration.

Me too. I fail to see what all the fuss is about now that we have all the high-performing loads that are available.

[Tex]

Ya know if I was to cover up the lables of the bullets shown on that chart I could not even begin to guess what was what.

[tb1911]

Noteworthy is that our policy makers depend on the ignorant and uninformed when making policy decisions.

And these decisions effect us all. Very sad....

[Speed is Life]

Originally Posted by Section1_Operations

With all due respect to peoples loved ones, who gives a F*&$ about collateral damage due to overpenetration. When a FAM deploys and uses their weapon all I care about is a dead hijacker(s) or threat(s), all other concerns are after thoughts in my opinion. I'd rather have a wounded passenger and a dead hijacker(s) than another guided missile or cargo to ransom in a foreign airport.

Airliners have triple redundant systems and two people who can monitor the automatic landing of the plane. I have to say again, to me, there's little to worry about concerning a FAM and their possible deployment of a firearm inside of a planes cabin.



The greatest disservice they could do is select some underpenetrating, fragmenting, or disintegrating round for PC reasons.

Agree with your last sentence, but the previous paragraph isn't quite true. There are few systems that have triple redundancy, only systems critical for flight, like hydraulics for non manual reversion aircraft, or electrical power to FBW flight control systems. The pilots, whom I regard as extremely critical, are not triple redundant.

It is easy to envision many scenarios where you could lose both pilots. FAMs are trained to engage the autopilot, and get help from that. Better hope the autoland system is installed and avaiable.

The focus here is not about the tradeoff between lives and allowing a terrorist to gain control of a weapon of mass destruction. That is a no brainer, and I live with it every time I go to work. There are issues there that no one wants to acknowledge there.

I want to understand the penetration characteristics of the rounds in question so I can apply that performance tactially.

Some of the numbers listed for the .357 SIG show nineteen inches of penetratoin after denim. The .40 SW is in the sixteen inch range. What does that mean when fired into CM of a human who is what, eight, ten inches thick?

Let me give you a hypothetical- I flew none other than Michael Moore on a flght shortly after 911. Let's say for instructional purposes, that someone of MM's considerable girth is purposely shielding a bad guy while a bomb or weapon is being assembled. Is it a viable solution to attempt a shot through the human barrage balloon to stop the terrorist building the bomb?

If we have already lost one pilot, and a bad guy is fighting with the remaining pilot, then if a FAM shoots a skinny bad guy off of the pilot's back, will the round stop in the bad guy, and not kill my last pilot.

Remember, we are not talking about morality, we are talking about penetration (that's ammunition penetration for Grasshopper).

Speedy

[Steve Camp]

Originally Posted by Speed is Life

The pilots, whom I regard as extremely critical, are not triple redundant.

It is easy to envision many scenarios where you could lose both pilots. FAMs are trained to engage the autopilot, and get help from that. Better hope the autoland system is installed and avaiable.

While expensive (i.e. no airline would probably take this step voluntarily), several plies of kevlar oughta keep all stray rounds out of the front office. (That is, a Level II equivalent layer of Kevlar.)

On a side note... Speedy... do temperatures at the rear of your front office ever exceed 180 degrees faranheit? The only place I could think they might is if they are parked for an extended time in a really hot dry place (e.g. Arizona -- Phoenix, Davis Mothan AFB; Mohave airport in California). The reason I ask is that I read many of the new, reinforced cockpit doors were armored with Spectra. Spectra breaks down and turns back into tupperware (i.e. no ballistic protection) if it reaches 180 degrees faranheit.)

Originally Posted by Speed is Life

Let me give you a hypothetical- I flew none other than Michael Moore on a flght shortly after 911. Let's say for instructional purposes, that someone of MM's considerable girth is purposely shielding a bad guy while a bomb or weapon is being assembled. Is it a viable solution to attempt a shot through the human barrage balloon to stop the terrorist building the bomb?

So sorry you were unable to do us all a huge favor. Pun intended.

Maybe you could attempt such a shot with 9mm ball ammo (or similar ball ammo in .357SIG). Don't know how badly you might wound the bomb maker. A better idea, IMO, would be to shoot the barrage balloon to the ground. With a little luck, he would fall on the weapons assembler and kill him. With some more luck... such a fat *ss might act as a suitable bomb blanket... both suffocating the bomb maker, and smothering a possible explosion. Of course, depending on whether or not the device being assembled is an ED... and depending on how much explosive material it might have... a bomb blanket (human or otherwise) might not make any difference.

Still, I think I'd opt for SFMTTG (FM == fat man), then dealing with the device assembler.

How about the ol' -3G bounce 'em both off the roof maneuver? Maybe fat man lands on device assembler. In any case... chances are the human barrage baloon is no longer in a good covering position. (OK, -3G may be excessive, but you get my idea.)

Originally Posted by Speed is Life

If we have already lost one pilot, and a bad guy is fighting with the remaining pilot, then if a FAM shoots the bad guy off of the pilot's back, will the round stop in the bad guy, and not kill my last pilot.

Rule #4 Know your target and what is beyond it.

I think it would be exceedingly poor tactics on the part of a FAM, FFDO or anyone else to shoot a BG off some GGs back, where the rounds will hurt the GG if they overpenetrate the BG. Such a shot should be a last ditch effort to save the pilot (or other GG). Such a shot might be the only reason for carrying a spare magazine loaded only with (or the first few shots with) a frangible projectile ala Glaser Silver.

Personally, if overpenetration is a great concern for the flight crew, I think all forward bulkheads should be reinforced or otherwise padded with the appropriate layers of Kevlar (or woven aramid fiber).

[Speed is Life]

Originally Posted by steve2267

How about the ol' -3G bounce 'em both off the roof maneuver? ...

...I think it would be exceedingly poor tactics on the part of a FAM, FFDO or anyone else to shoot a BG off some GGs back, where the rounds will hurt the GG if they overpenetrate the BG. ...

...Personally, if overpenetration is a great concern for the flight crew, I think all forward bulkheads should be reinforced or otherwise padded with the appropriate layers of Kevlar (or woven aramid fiber).

A lot of reasons that the aircraft maneuvering is ineffective. It has been evaluated throughly by test pilots using a real airliner by the manufacturer. Additionally, if there are armed good guys on board, it is better to give them a stable platform. Especially if they have to shoot forward!

The doors are officially made of "good stuff".

There are no ammunition choices.

Speedy